We Hear You! Letters From the February Issue

by the More.com Editors

Dairy is Good for You

In your recent articles, "How Safe Is Your Milk?" and "Simple Swaps for Safer Dairy," you've given women a set of mistaken reasons to avoid dairy products at a time when all Americans, and women and children in particular do not meet their daily requirements for calcium, potassium and Vitamin D, plentifully supplied by milk and other dairy foods. You've also fallen into the journalistic trap of connecting a particular food --in this case, dairy--to a particular disease --cancer--when medical researchers, epidemiologists and even food scientists like me will not agree to this particular cause and effect relationship. Let's take a look at some additional science-based information. The recently released 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recognize the importance of three daily servings of low-fat or fat-free dairy foods as a core part of a healthy diet. The Dietary Guidelines also say that milk and milk products supply three of the four nutrients of concern (calcium, vitamin D and potassium) in the diets of Americans, as well as many other important nutrients. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th Edition, Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office, December 2010.)

All milk (cow, goat, sheep, camel, human etc.), as well as all animal and plant foods, naturally contain very small amounts of hormones. Your suggestion that readers consume sheep or goat's milk is also restrictive in that these pasteurized products are not commonly found in retail grocery store cases.

You state that, "Galactose may set in motion processes that stimulate the growth of ovarian cells and follicles, adding to the lifetime stress on the ovaries." You correctly state that this is a theory, and, in fact, there is no scientific evidence to indicate that consumption of lactose promotes cancer. However, based on this theory, you recommend consumption of lactose-free milk. Lactose-free milk is produced by adding lactase to milk. Lactase is an enzyme that converts lactose into its constituent sugars (glucose and galactose). Consequently, lactose-free milk contains the same level of galactose as regular milk, it is just no longer linked to a molecule of glucose. Consumption of lactose-free milk will not decrease consumption of galactose. If a person is lactose intolerant, they simply lack the enzyme, lactase, and when they consume regular milk, the lactose is metabolized in their large intestine and they experience intestinal

discomfort. Lactose-free milk provides these consumers the opportunity to consume milk without having digestive issues. And lactose intolerance doesn't mean avoiding dairy altogether. It's important for people with lactose intolerance to find a way to meet their recommended intake of calcium and milk's other essential nutrients. In addition to lactose-free milk, fermented dairy products such as regular or reduced-fat Cheddar cheese are nutrient dense, contain very little lactose (<.20%) and can be readily consumed by people that are lactose intolerant.

Some dairy farmers choose to use recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) as a tool to help cows produce more milk more resourcefully. Studies show that milk from cows treated with the supplemental hormone rbST is the same wholesome product that we have enjoyed for years. The use of recombinant bovine somatotropin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993 based on an exhaustive review of scientific studies. (Bovine somatotropin. NIH Technol. Assess Statement Online 1990 Dec 5-7; (7):16.)

Share Your Thoughts!

Comments

I am a training for a 5-Day Coaching Intensive with the Life Purpose Institute. We just held a training in GA with 9 women from varying backgrounds, ages, fields of interests, etc. The stories of how women reinvented their lives in this issue just gave us such inspiration and motivation! As a coach, I inspire women to open their eyes to those endless possibilities out there. Often it is so hard to see one when we have been confined in a box of the "shoulds" for so long. Thank you for sharing these stories with us!!

I realize there are some glitches in the website; however, I'm still wondering about when you submit a story, and the "action" is listed as "edit," how is it that you find what it is that needs to be changed to meet your specifications?

My comment has nothing to do with this article, but it is my attempt to notify someone with More about an article pending under my name. Thing is, it's not my story!! Somehow, someone else's story got linked with my name. It's titled "Musical Motif-Are You Repeating Yourself". I did not submit this. Thanks!!

I was so glad to see that other people wrote in, in response to your article about dairy. I always thought of your magazine as one with a little more substance but this article has relegated you to the ranks of fluff magazines that I am not really interested in. The words: may be, could be, hypothesize, seems to, theory & the such are used over 20 times in this article. There is absolutely no substance whatsoever & seems to just be written to inflame the debate over dairy. Very disappointing to see an article like this in your magazine-why on earth did the writer write it if there is no substance to the claims? Please do not give merit to this kind of unscientific reporting (on a scientific article) by printing it.

I have been an avid reader of More for 8 years and always looked forward to all the wonderful features about 40 and over women!
Your Feb. cover girl Molly Sims is 37 years old and this months March cover girl Bridget Moynahan is not yet 40.
You have also featured Chloe Sevigny in your celebrity sit down...Chloe is 36!
I guess More's over 40 format is being phased out!
More has been key in keeping over 40 women visible, and I can't understand why this successful format is being changed!
Is anybody else not bothered by this?
Your March issue will be my last issue of More...Good luck with your new format.

I totally agree with you blonderichmond...There is so much more to these radical "religions" than people realize, but that's definatelynot what they are promoting...oh, love the world, yadayada...yeah right! Muslims promote whatthey want you to hear.
Instead of More-For Women Style & Substance, the cover should say, "More-Our Political Agenda" It seems to be the common theme of the magazine...Muslim rights (on Ground-zero, that is!!) gay, lesbian, do what you want, no moral standards, buddism-you make your own destiny...marriage? forget-it! if you're not happy, just roll out! hmmmmmmm

I loved the Work column this month,"Start Your Biz for Under $150. Really." Would you consider making this a monthly column, featuring a business each month? Even if the bar of $150 was a little low to keep it going, raising the limit a little higher and giving us new ideas to spring from each month would be sensational.

To Annemarie,
really? that is what you care about?, about how a First Lady is addressed. I especially liked your example of good old Carla. Wow!!, yea that was a good one. Anyway, chalk it up to the lack of good manners in today's world, especially the good ole New York Times, which you seem to hold dear. There is no respect

Loved your article, "Calming Your Internal Storms," by Katherine Ellison. It's so important to share about non-drug treatments for menopause, ADHD, and a host of other conditions. As a neurofeedback practitioner, we especially appreciate the exposure. What a great service!
Diane Wilson, LCPC
Board Certified in Neurofeedback
www.grimardwilson.com

To Daisy Khan, you live in a bubble, you refuse to realize that the majority of Muslims live in medieval times. It is a fact that they are very slow to modernize. Islamic women have little or no rights in the Middle East. They are beholden to a religion that has spun out of control, one that is so restrictive and backwards, that I cannot believe that any educated Muslim woman would not criticize it, but you will not. So, dear Daisy, that is what you should do, free your Muslim sisters, criticize your religion, (because there is much to condemn), when I hear that from prominent Muslim women, then I will believe you and "your so called ideals". Until then, I will suspend my belief in your so called benevolent religion.

It's been a lifetime ago since a fitness article, "A Reluctant Makeover" has moved & inspired me & spurned me into action! Judith Newman IS a bonafide wizard with words! She has captured the emotional (Real TEARS!), trials & tribulations of committimg to a fitness program in such an honest, humurous & informative article. Love her confidence and candor...She IS my new mentor! YAHOO!

Kudos to Suzanna Andrews for an excellent article on Daisy Khan. While I do not doubt the sincerity of Daisy I think she needs to acknowledge that she was raised in a unique situation. The percentage of Islamic parents who have raised their families with the same views and values is minor in comparison to the rest of the Islamic world. Hopefully that percentage will improve, for the betterment of us all.

I'm curious as to why such a classy magazine such as MORE would address woman in their articles by their last names only? (February issue - Carla Bruni-Sarkozy). I quote, "In her role as first lady, Bruni-Sarkozy has elevated sheaths..." Is this anyway to address a first lady or any lady for that matter? How about a Ms. or Mrs. instead? Take note from the New York Times articles & use a little more class. I'm also curious if the employees address the Editor-in-Chief as Seymour & not Ms. Seymoour!